I like the 105 but I don't have a lot of examples with the Z (used it with the 6x7, just haven't shot portraits much since getting the Z). I have an opportunity to take some tonight and I'll post some examples tomorrow.

The lens is sharp on the 645D. The problem is: starting from f/5.6, if you very picky at the corners then starting from f/8. That's not the purpose of an f/2.4 lens. On the other hand, for portrait work it might not be necessary to have extreme sharpness. There it might be bette,r haven't tired it.

It's the first P67 I bought after I got my 645D. I'm more in love with trying out the 55/4.5 at present, however I have some 105-645D images in this album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskfzfnBZ

Files that are relevant should have 'P67105_' as a prefix.

...be gentle when critiquing please, as I'm still working out how to maximise colour from my setup...getting there but none posted in that album as yet. I found with C1 Pro that if I use an LCC for the P40+ that it enhances reds and greens compared with the flat generic P645D DNG profile.

It's the first P67 I bought after I got my 645D. I'm more in love with trying out the 55/3.5 at present, however I have some 105-645D images in this album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskfzfnBZ

Files that are relevant should have 'P67105_' as a prefix.

...be gentle when critiquing please, as I'm still working out how to maximise colour from my setup...getting there but none posted in that album as yet. I found with C1 Pro that if I use an LCC for the P40+ that it enhances reds and greens compared with the flat generic P645D DNG profile.

Thank you for sharing these. Looks like it could be hard to nail focus wide open with it super shallow DOF. Thanks again

here's a few with the 105. The first is stopped down to 5.6. The other 2 are wide open. All hand held and unedited (straight conversion of the RAW file). Sorry, not the greatest shots, but gives you an idea. (I seemed to be getting the nose spot on but missing the eyes).

I've been using the 105mm on 645z for a few months as a fast prime for portraits and it's quite good. More recently I've started trying out the Hasselblad 150/2.8 but finding it a little difficult to manually focus. For now 105 will do until I get my hands on the Hasseelblad 110 f/2.

I don't do a lot of portraiture, but I bought a 67 105mm f/2.4 specifically for that purpose some time ago, after seeing Chris Willson's early work with it on his 645D. I have the newer version of the lens. KEH.com has some right now; they call the newer one "PENTAX 105MM F/2.4 SMC LATE LENS FOR PENTAX 6X7 SERIES". The older one is the Takumar, I haven't tried it.

Here's something I made with the 105mm on the 645Z. This was shot at f/8; available light, ISO 400, handheld. I wanted a little more depth of field for the subject so I didn't shoot a wider aperture. I do like the look of this lens. Nailing the focus right on is challenging at the wider apertures, but like most things, with practice you should get the hang of it.

The new 645 90mm f/2.8 is probably better all around. But for the price difference there's hardly any downside to trying the old 67 option.

I don't do a lot of portraiture, but I bought a 67 105mm f/2.4 specifically for that purpose some time ago, after seeing Chris Willson's early work with it on his 645D. I have the newer version of the lens. KEH.com has some right now; they call the newer one "PENTAX 105MM F/2.4 SMC LATE LENS FOR PENTAX 6X7 SERIES". The older one is the Takumar, I haven't tried it.

Here's something I made with the 105mm on the 645Z. This was shot at f/8; available light, ISO 400, handheld. I wanted a little more depth of field for the subject so I didn't shoot a wider aperture. I do like the look of this lens. Nailing the focus right on is challenging at the wider apertures, but like most things, with practice you should get the hang of it.

The new 645 90mm f/2.8 is probably better all around. But for the price difference there's hardly any downside to trying the old 67 option.

Really nice image Royce

I mostly shoot 105 wide open and nailing the focus requires using live view with zoom. I'm used to that from the Sony A7r so didn't take long to get the hang of it on the 645z. I have the same version as mentioned by Royce and actually bought it from keh

Now my next question What version of the 105 is the best one to get and how do you tell them aprt.

The older SMC Takumar and Super-Takumar have a fluted metal barrel, while the newer Pentax 105 has a rubber grip barrel. Only the Super-Takumar is different optically but both design types are sharp. Both designs are Double Gauss which is what most normal lenses for 35mm SLR cameras had. The Super-Takumar didn't have the 7 layer anti reflection coating(SMC), plus it used Thorium glass. Get the newer versions.

Far as I know, you have 3 generations of the 105/2.4. The Super Tak (1969), the S-M-C 6x7 (1971) and the SMC 67 (1989) generation. All of those have the same optic formula I believe. I've done extremely tight head shots with the #1 extension tube + 105/2.4 on a full frame 6x7 camera and nailed focus at f2.8.